We performed a comparison between OpenText UFT One and Sauce Labs based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Functional Testing Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features for us are the GUI, the easy identification of objects, and folder structure creation."
"The production and the efficiency of making your test cases can be very high."
"Being able to automate different applications makes day-to-day activities a lot easier."
"I find UFT One to be very good for thick clients, which are non-browser applications."
"I like the fact that we can use LeanFT with our UFT licenses as well."
"The interface is fine and there is nothing else to add in terms of enhancement."
"On a scale of one to ten, I would give OpenText UFT One a 10 because it is a reliable product, it works, it's as good or better than similar solutions especially because you get technical support from real people. Additionally, upgrades are always provided on a consistent basis."
"The most valuable features are its support for multiple technologies, ease of coding, object repository, and ability to design our own framework. The recording playback feature allows those unfamiliar with coding to use the tool."
"Before implementing Sauce Labs, we tested physical devices that team members had to share. It was more feasible when we were all located in one office, but we couldn't leverage our offshore capacity. With this solution, we can do everything remotely, which is essential now that most of us work from home."
"Sauce Connect gave us ability to test an application that was hosted locally."
"Sauce Labs provides us with more combinations to test, so we can keep adding platforms and devices to our network. That's been a very seamless experience. Let's say there's an iOS or a private device we need. Sauce Labs has helped get all those set up when needed."
"The abundance of device, platform, and browser combinations/versions that can be used in parallel."
"I like the dashboard and seeing the test results. As a manager, I like to see the insights of the people using it, understanding the total path and run. I can see all of that as a manager. I also know team members love seeing the dashboard and seeing the test results in real-time."
"From an infrastructure support perspective, the number of VMs, browsers installations and versions that we would be maintaining without Sauce Labs would be a lot. This includes not only the infrastructure costs, but also the maintenance costs and people's time. The labor cost associated with maintaining all of that would be considerably high. In terms of efficiency, having concurrent VMs with various browser combinations available has allowed us to run multiple executions by all our teams."
"With only a few clicks, it gives us the availability to use any browser and OS combination whenever we want."
"Maintaining many environments for test is a bear. These guys make it so easy with their CI integration that you can have tests going in after a few hours."
"Object identification has room for improvement, to make it more efficient."
"Needs to improve the integration with the CI/CD pipeline (VSTS and report generation)."
"Sometimes, the results' file size can be intense. I wish it was a little more compact."
"Scripting has become more complex from a maintenance standpoint to support additional browsers."
"It doesn't support Telerik UI controls and we are currently looking for a patch for this."
"The product should evolve to be flexible so one can use any programming language such as Java and C#, and not just VB script."
"The solution does not have proper scripting."
"The price is very high. They should work to lower the costs for their clients."
"They should provide a JIRA integration plugin so that we can easily log issues."
"An image comparison would be a nice feature to include in the Sauce Labs product."
"Sometimes pasting text while using "text object" does not seem to work, and it slows down testing times quite a bit."
"We have had some issues with the Sauce Connect Proxy on our Jenkins servers failing to start, which makes the optimal CI/CD pipeline come to a halt."
"The only drawback is the speed, it will be good if we have a server in Asia too. It will be great if we can improve speed while initialization and execution."
"User account management needs an overhauls, allowing for user groups rather than just a hierarchy structure."
"The Jenkins Sauce OnDemand plugin could have more options available to tap into more of the custom capabilities Sauce Labs actually supports."
"We had some specific features that we opened tickets on, although they were not earth-shattering. For example, the way the menus scroll could be improved because it does not have a bar, the way that people are used to, where you can move up and down."
OpenText UFT One is ranked 2nd in Functional Testing Tools with 90 reviews while Sauce Labs is ranked 11th in Functional Testing Tools with 113 reviews. OpenText UFT One is rated 8.0, while Sauce Labs is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of OpenText UFT One writes "With regularly occurring releases, a QA team member can schedule tests, let the tests run unattended, and then examine the results". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sauce Labs writes "Robust documentation, helpful support representative, good licensing model". OpenText UFT One is most compared with Tricentis Tosca, OpenText UFT Developer, Katalon Studio, SmartBear TestComplete and UiPath Test Suite, whereas Sauce Labs is most compared with BrowserStack, Perfecto, LambdaTest, Bitbar and Selenium HQ. See our OpenText UFT One vs. Sauce Labs report.
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors, best Test Automation Tools vendors, and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
